Go ahead --- keep going with your snarky insinuation that I'm a closet racist. Let's see where this goes. (*glancing up at the warning thread at the top of this page*)

The part where you're talking about Trevor's persona being an American who hated his country *was* discussed in an off-camera interview by Feige, I'll grant you that; but that story angle was never shown in the movie as released at all. In any event, the Muslim stereotyping was still said to be adopted by Trevor's character, even in that interview; along with iconography from China, Cuba, pretty much a catch-all of terrorist/rebel leaders. A stereotype of stereotypes. Still: a *stereotype.*

That doesn't matter to me. He wasn't muslim. I never saw him as muslim. And I never saw that interview either. He was clearly american to me. His iconography or actions have no bearing on his race or vice-versa, so I have no idea why you ever called him a racist stereotype or cariacature. Although I do wonder what this says about Kevin Fiege and Shane Black.

That's all very meaningless. Although I must say the word "crappy" is a bit too harsh in this case, as it was when you said it, as the twist itself has no actual bearing on the quality of the film. What does, however, is how it's handled and how the film progresses after it. Which is poorly in a few areas.

Quote:

Good. Name them, and why you think they're "fine enough" to warrant appearances in movies. But they *would* go see a movie about a hero with a larger than life personality who's a ton of fun to watch, regardless of whose butt he does or doesn't kick. Imagine --- people going to see a movie about the hero, instead of the villain. What's the world coming to?!

People do go to see a movie for a hero. They go to see the hero overcome the challenge the villain presents. The villain will always be as important to the story as the hero. Very few people would ever go to see a movie just about either.

Quote:

Irony.
Dude, I shot your misconceptions down one by one, and you still continue to close your ears and go "la la la i'm not listening to you." With everything that I explained to you going over your head, and everything in the movie going over your head, I'm truly sorry, and I hope that one day you'll look back at this movie and finally understand it. But I'm not willing to bet on that; so in the meantime, I've said all I'm going to say to you. Cheers, and goodbye.

Nothing's gone over anyone's head, so I don't know why you keep pretending that you're special. You're not. Everybody understands the film. That doesn't mean anything to them as they're not pretentious and self-important like this movie, so it doesn't make it any less dumb or unnecesary to them that they were deprived of the best movie going experience possible because Shane Black himself is apparently also pretentious and self-important.

Kingsley's Mandarin, according to cherookesam, would've been an outrageous offending stereotype tons of people would've ranted about if there hadn't been the twist. The similar terrorist theme thing was already in Iron Man 1 and it was the one to establish that in this version it is an Afganistan terrorist ring, but there wasn't huge rallies over the moral of it or anything. And those masses that would be so easily unsettled that they'd be offended by Kingsley's portrayal as the Mandarin, they would've already ranted when the trailer hit. There may have been a few people complaning, but there are always those few whiners, so it's not relevant

besides, how is a leader of an Afganistan terrorist ring who supports chinese iconography an unacceptable stereotype? Or even a stereotype at all for that matter. One could describe Mandarin as cheesy, but saying he's an offending stereotype that would unsettle bunch of people is stretching it

Kingsley's Mandarin, according to cherookesam, would've been an outrageous offending stereotype tons of people would've ranted about if there hadn't been the twist. The similar terrorist theme thing was already in Iron Man 1 and it was the one to establish that in this version it is an Afganistan terrorist ring, but there wasn't huge rallies over the moral of it or anything. And those masses that would be so easily unsettled that they'd be offended by Kingsley's portrayal as the Mandarin, they would've already ranted when the trailer hit. There may have been a few people complaning, but there are always those few whiners, so it's not relevant

besides, how is a leader of an Afganistan terrorist ring who supports chinese iconography an unacceptable stereotype? Or even a stereotype at all for that matter. One could describe Mandarin as cheesy, but saying he's an offending stereotype that would unsettle bunch of people is stretching it

I just don't get it. He keeps going on and on about how it was a "racist cariacature" or a "racist stereotype" that promoted the "racist belief" that "all muslims are terrorists" (which doesn't happen, by the way. No one walks out a of a movie thinking 'Gee goly dim dare mooslims sur were meen terrists, day all must be'). It's just nonsensical, as Kingsley's Mandarin wasn't even muslim by race! And the best villains are almost always cheesy. How else are you supposed to have fun watching them?

Muslim isn't a race btw, it's a religion (a common misconception). Still, the movie shows no signs of The Mandarin being a part of said religion

It's kinda hilarious how the Mandarin thing hasn't even been brought by any muslims, and I bet they don't even care. It's just people here making absurd assumptions of what they'd be offended by. In today's modern world people are so afraid of offending an other culture that they're just deciding what they'd get offended by without using common sense

Muslim isn't a race btw, it's a religion (a common misconception). Still, the movie shows no signs of The Mandarin being a part of said religion

It's kinda hilarious how the Mandarin thing hasn't even been brought by any muslims, and I bet they don't even care. It's just people here making absurd assumptions of what they'd be offended by. In today's modern world people are so afraid of offending an other culture that they're just deciding what they'd get offended by without using common sense

Why does he keep bringing up race then? I originally thought he was talking about religon, but then he just kept going back to race, so naturally I, with my severe lack of knowledge of various religons, assumed I was mistaken about it and followed suit. Seriously what's that's about? Is he trying to say that only a certain race is muslim? What does race have to do with anything then and why does he keep bringing it up?

Why does he keep bringing up race then? I originally thought he was talking about religon, but then he just kept going back to race, so naturally I, with my severe lack of knowledge of various religons, assumed I was mistaken about it and followed suit. Seriously what's that's about? Is he trying to say that only a certain race is muslim? What does race have to do with anything then and why does he keep bringing it up?

Middle Eastern ethnicity. Okay? That make it any clearer for you? Doubt it.

You want to nitpick semantics, fine: *technically,* Comic-Book Mandarin wasn't Chinese, he was half-British, half-Chinese of Mongolian descent; but the iconography was definitely a racist stereotype of East Asians and Red Chinese in particular. It reflected a common bigotry of the time. Similarly, Movie "Mandarin" was of indeterminate ethnicity, but the *ruse* was that he was living in the Middle East (Afghanistan or Pakistan), surrounded by Middle Eastern terrorists, embracing Middle Eastern iconography, affecting a vaguely Middle Eastern accent, and was portrayed by an actor of Middle Eastern/South Asian ancestry (Kingsley's father was an Indian Muslim expatriate from Kenya). The Middle Eastern/Muslim iconography was there, blindingly obvious, and meant to invoke America's typical kneejerk reaction to "Islamofascism" (Fox News' favorite term).

What else? You want to engage in semantics about ethnicity all day? I was writing theses about it when you were still in diapers, so feel free to continue to play coy and test me. Or do you want me to sincerely believe that you're just that stupid? I don't think you are; do you?

He was actually affecting a babtist preacher accent. Of course, that's part of it too: he was the embodiment of everything the majority of America fears, including little redneck militia types. You're a southerner and the voice doesn't creep you out? Be creeped out by the middle-eastern imagery. You're from San Fransisco and too evolved to be an islamaphobe? Be creeped out by the Baptist preacher voice, it's the voice of Jim Jones type redneck nutjobs and grinning hillbillies missing half their teeth who want to rape nice evolved yankee boys like yourself.

He was actually affecting a babtist preacher accent. Of course, that's part of it too: he was the embodiment of everything the majority of America fears, including little redneck militia types. You're a southerner and the voice doesn't creep you out? Be creeped out by the middle-eastern imagery. You're from San Fransisco and too evolved to be an islamaphobe? Be creeped out by the Baptist preacher voice, it's the voice of Jim Jones type redneck nutjobs and grinning hillbillies missing half their teeth who want to rape nice evolved yankee boys like yourself.

That makes no sense. No one equates those things with what you said. There is absolutely nothing scary about a baptist preacher or middle-eastern imagery. There's nothing creepy about either. Quite the opposite. I loved the baptist preacher vibe and the middle-eastern imagery, if that's what you want to call it. It made him all very badass and engaging.

Middle Eastern ethnicity. Okay? That make it any clearer for you? Doubt it.

You want to nitpick semantics, fine: *technically,* Comic-Book Mandarin wasn't Chinese, he was half-British, half-Chinese of Mongolian descent; but the iconography was definitely a racist stereotype of East Asians and Red Chinese in particular. It reflected a common bigotry of the time. Similarly, Movie &quot;Mandarin&quot; was of indeterminate ethnicity, but the *ruse* was that he was living in the Middle East (Afghanistan or Pakistan), surrounded by Middle Eastern terrorists, embracing Middle Eastern iconography, affecting a vaguely Middle Eastern accent, and was portrayed by an actor of Middle Eastern/South Asian ancestry (Kingsley's father was an Indian Muslim expatriate from Kenya). The Middle Eastern/Muslim iconography was there, blindingly obvious, and meant to invoke America's typical kneejerk reaction to &quot;Islamofascism&quot; (Fox News' favorite term).

It's really quite sad then that they failed miserably in that. It didn't &quot;invoke&quot; that in me at all. I was loving it all. Loving Kingsley's Mandarin and liking him at the same time. Ya see, that's important, to genuinely like and care about the villain and even be interested in the reasonings in his actions and character. Too bad Killian didn't really have that.

Quote:

What else? You want to engage in semantics about ethnicity all day?

Why not? You seem content to insist on it's importance in this.

Quote:

I was writing theses about it when you were still in diapers, so feel free to continue to play coy and test me.

Based on your attitude, I somehow doubt that. But if so, good for you. However, that means nothing to me. Is it supposed to sound intimidating?

Quote:

Or do you want me to sincerely believe that you're just that stupid? I don't think you are; do you?

Think what you want. Your opinion of me isn't important, nor does it change anything.

I just hate people that recist seeing flaws in a movie just because they enjoyed it. I loved The Dark Knight Rises and my enjoyment of it was 11/10 but I see it's not flawless, I really enjoyed The Amazing Spider-Man but I recognize it's flaws. But some of these guys, even after a sensible argument just can't say "oh I kinda see where you're coming from, but I still enjoyed it myself". Kinda petty

This topic isn't going anywhere. I'm gonna leave with these words: the twist didn't work on solid logic, but hey, if some of you enjoyed it, great. I personally hated it

I just hate people that recist seeing flaws in a movie just because they enjoyed it. I loved The Dark Knight Rises and my enjoyment of it was 11/10 but I see it's not flawless, I really enjoyed The Amazing Spider-Man but I recognize it's flaws. But some of these guys, even after a sensible argument just can't say "oh I kinda see where you're coming from, but I still enjoyed it myself". Kinda petty

This topic isn't going anywhere. I'm gonna leave with these words: the twist didn't work on solid logic, but hey, if some of you enjoyed it, great. I personally hated it

cheers to you all

Just because some people don't agree with you regarding whether a certain thing is a flaw or not doesn't mean that they won't see any flaws in the movie.

Today, I read the in the newspaper about the passing of Chen Xitong. Now here is a true Chinese criminal. He was the mayor of Beijing during the Tiananmen Square Massacre and a very corrupt man. His passing wasn't mourned in China. He was tried for corruption - but not for his part in the Massacre - and spent a few years in prison before being let out on health reasons.The Chinese government supposedly has not given him any posthumous recognition or praise. To the public he doesn't look extraordinary, but what he did was vile and corrupt. If there is an afterlife he will certainly answer for his sins.

If I didn't read the newspaper I wouldn't have known he ever existed, because he looked so average. That's a mistake people like to make. They want villains who stick out, not knowing that normal people can abuse positions of power.

__________________

If there's one thing you can learn from Game of Thrones is this important lesson:

IM3 didn't need to cater to the majority; it needed characters who were legitimately dangerous. I'm a fan of Black's intentions, but the execution was less then satisfactory.

Iron Man 3's villains were legitimately dangerous. Maybe you missed the part where they were shredding Tony's armor like tin foil, bringing down Air Force One, tossing armored heroes around like toys and spontaneously exploding like human time bombs?

Quote:

Originally Posted by cherokeesam

What "price?" $1.2 billion, as one of the biggest blockbuster films of all time?

I can see the point Adamantium Man was making, but you're absolutely right. The only price Iron Man 3 has paid is being subjected to relentless attacks from a minority of fans online. The vast majority of people whom saw it loved it, going by its audience score on RT/Flixter as well as its box office gross. For a time folks in these parts were eager to point to IM3's 78% RT critics' score as some sort of proof of its supposed low quality and poor WOM, but I think recent events have put paid to that line of attack.

Iron Man 3's villains were legitimately dangerous. Maybe you missed the part where they were shredding Tony's armor like tin foil, bringing down Air Force One, tossing armored heroes around like toys and spontaneously exploding like human time bombs?

I'm referring to the Mandarin and Killian. The Extremis soldiers were one of my favorite aspects of the film.

__________________
"For he had promised her that, when she first saw Tanelorn, she would be riding upon a dragon."

I can see the point Adamantium Man was making, but you're absolutely right. The only price Iron Man 3 has paid is being subjected to relentless attacks from a minority of fans online. The vast majority of people whom saw it loved it, going by its audience score on RT/Flixter as well as its box office gross. For a time folks in these parts were eager to point to IM3's 78% RT critics' score as some sort of proof of its supposed low quality and poor WOM, but I think recent events have put paid to that line of attack.

That's what I meant, yeah.

And I don't get the point about the villains not being dangerous. Xeno said it. Just because Trevor wasn't dangerous doesn't mean that the Mandarin wasn't, or the Extremis soldiers.

This 'enemies not being dangerous' thing proves my point. IM3 is paying a price. Not in box office gross, obviously, but some of Black's intentions clearly didn't pay off with some. (Or maybe it's too much to ask of some fans to accept that the third act of a SH movie isn't precisely the expected hero-villain one-on-one.)

And I don't get the point about the villains not being dangerous. Xeno said it. Just because Trevor wasn't dangerous doesn't mean that the Mandarin wasn't, or the Extremis soldiers.

This 'enemies not being dangerous' thing proves my point. IM3 is paying a price. Not in box office gross, obviously, but some of Black's intentions clearly didn't pay off with some. (Or maybe it's too much to ask of some fans to accept that the third act of a SH movie isn't precisely the expected hero-villain one-on-one.)

The third act still had the hero-villain confrontation with Stark and Killian. The mooks were plenty dangerous--I just wasn't sold on the main villains.

__________________
"For he had promised her that, when she first saw Tanelorn, she would be riding upon a dragon."

Iron Man 3's villains were legitimately dangerous. Maybe you missed the part where they were shredding Tony's armor like tin foil, bringing down Air Force One, tossing armored heroes around like toys and spontaneously exploding like human time bombs?

I see the reverse of this point being brought up as a con towards the film, in that his armors were too easily destroyed, but I look at it as you have described. The enemies in this film were extremely dangerous. The stakes have been raised, just as they were in the Ellis/Granov Extremis arc. To me, this is not only very important to Tony's evolution, but it also holds relevance to the MCU as a whole, highlighting Nick Fury's line in the Avengers - "The world is filling up with people who can't be matched"

What I do hope is that the filmmakers don't forget about this fact and relegate Tony's next armor to being a mostly cosmetic upgrade as they typically have been thus far. The ending of the film will complicate this even further, because I'm seriously wondering how they plan to address getting him back into the armor in the first place.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xeno000

I can see the point Adamantium Man was making, but you're absolutely right. The only price Iron Man 3 has paid is being subjected to relentless attacks from a minority of fans online. The vast majority of people whom saw it loved it, going by its audience score on RT/Flixter as well as its box office gross. For a time folks in these parts were eager to point to IM3's 78% RT critics' score as some sort of proof of its supposed low quality and poor WOM, but I think recent events have put paid to that line of attack.

Haven't you heard? The critics are wrong now. They have no more credibility. Oh but Iron Man 3 still sucks

I can see the point Adamantium Man was making, but you're absolutely right. The only price Iron Man 3 has paid is being subjected to relentless attacks from a minority of fans online. The vast majority of people whom saw it loved it, going by its audience score on RT/Flixter as well as its box office gross. For a time folks in these parts were eager to point to IM3's 78% RT critics' score as some sort of proof of its supposed low quality and poor WOM, but I think recent events have put paid to that line of attack.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Visualiza

:Haven't you heard? The critics are wrong now. They have no more credibility. Oh but Iron Man 3 still sucks

IM3 has a "mixed" reaction amongst the fanboys and the GA, despite having a slightly higher audience score than MoS, whose score supposedly stuck it to the "hating" critics.